Issa, D (2016) Understanding performance measurement in private prisons: A complexity perspective approach. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Performance measurement for private prisons is problematic for three main reasons. First, the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is founded on a reductionist approach that reducesthe performance of an organization to a single list of measures upon which the provider is paid. Second, prisons in the UK are built to confine and to rehabilitate. This can cause contradiction in relation to performance measures prioritization made between, for instance, security and decency. Third, to emphasize accountability, private prisons' performance is assessed by different organizations; each has their own perspective and priorities. Therefore, a complexity perspective driven by the syntheses approach has been adopted to critically evaluate performance measurement in private prisons.Semi-structured interviews with controllers, prison inspectors, monitors, and prison directors (the Performance Stakeholders) were used to identify complexity dimensions and the way these dimensions interact in a private prison environment. These interactions have been summarized under three main elements; People, Service, and Performance.The People (Performance Stakeholders) represented the behavioural complexity dimension seen in different prioritization of measures and fluctuating levels of trust, gaming of numbers, and transparency. The Service and multiple Performance systems are the source of structural complexity seen in differentiation and interdependencies. Behavioural complexity was found to be beneficial in reducing the adverse behaviour associated with performance measurement systems. The three elements interact over time with the influence of contextual complexitytriggered by political and economical aspects. Self-organization, emergence, and adaptability were evident among the performance stakeholders (People).The findings of the research suggest that private prisons performance is the result of multiple interacting variables. The standard practice of performance measurement cannot account for all of these variables. It is concluded that the danger for policy making is to base decisions on only a small piece (KPIs) of the whole picture.The research findings are limited to Category B & C private prisons. Category A (dispersal) prisons were not covered. Also, the snowballing technique used in sampling does not guarantee a full representation of potential respondents. This was mitigated by interviewing participants with extensive experience in the prison sector. Future research can widen the pool of Performance Stakeholdersby including politicians and think tanks. Also, it is recommended that future research would explore the applicability of the research findings to other social infrastructure projects such as schools and hospitals.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Kirkham, R and Emsley, M |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | UK; accountability; complexity; differentiation; emergence; gaming; key performance indicators; measurement; policy; prison; schools; security; trust |
| Index terms: | transparency, dimension, infrastructure project, interaction, sampling, key performance indicator, performance measurement, emergence, complexity, differentiation, self-organization, adaptability, accountability, performance measure, guarantee, gaming, prison, policy making, interview |
| Subjects: | professional development, contract structure, performance measurement, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, systems engineering, sociology, data collection methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, project delivery, decision-making and reasoning, liability law, behavioral psychology, organization, user focus, policy studies |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Procurement, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Governance, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here